Talk:Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amc4702.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all countries signed[edit]

Not all countries[1] that later were involved in World War II signed in 1929, like the USSR and Japan. This meant that a prisoner of war could not expect to be treated properly by these states, and thus POWs from these states were often not treated well either. -- Matthead ^discuß! O 19:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that simple. At the Nuremberg Trials it was stated that the Hague conventsion were by the 1940s customary laws (see the section Influence on the development of international criminal law). As is made clear in the Red Cross commantery at the start of this article "Provisions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war are contained in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907.. The [1929] Convention does not replace but only completes the provisions of the Hague regulations.". --PBS 10:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Examples[edit]

Would it be possible to find other times that the convention would have been used as an argument basis to provide more depth and understanding to the Wikipedia page? Amc4702 (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia[edit]

or Kingdom of Yugoslavia ? --Goesseln (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ambiguous with Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field (1929)?[edit]

It seems they are both Geneva Conventions of 1929, and this article should be moved to Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (1929) per its name here. Knr5 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did the move, but haven't yet fixed the redirect problem. Geneva Convention (1929) should not be a redirect, but should be a disambiguation page now. I'm pretty sure some of the articles that link to it intended to link to Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field (1929) rather than this article. Knr5 (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Geneva Convention (1929). Knr5 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]